Whitney, Exec. v. Halibut’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" 'When two parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate integration of that contract, evidence, whether parol or otherwise, of antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the writing.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 51 Md. App. 299 - Dep't of Gen. Serv. v. CHERRY HILL S & G CO. · State, Department of General Services v. Cherry Hill Sand & Gravel Co.

2. ““ . . .In that case [Brooks v. Towson Realty, Inc., 223 Md. 61 , 162 A. 2d 431 (1960)], Judge Hammond speaking for the Court, said: ‘We think the proffered testimony should have been admitted, although not to aid in determining the legal existence or validity of the contracts or in varying their terms. It was proffered not only to show that what purported to be three contracts were actually one contract, but for the purpose of showing misrepresentations and lack of good faith on the part of Towson. We think it was material to show the situation and background of the parties and the subject matter of the contracts at the time they were entered into and to aid the court in determining whether the contract as to Parcel B was one which a court of equity would specifically enforce.’ See also the authorities cited in Brooks at pp. 70-71 of 223 Md. In one of these, Perlmutter v. Bacas, 219 Md. 406, 411-412 , 149 A. 2d 23 , where after stating the general rule that equity will decree specific performance almost as a matter of course if the terms of the contract are clear and unobjectionable, we said: ‘[nevertheless, the discretion of the court will be exercised to deny the relief where to' grant it would be to compel the defendant to perform a contract which he did not intend to make or which he would not have entered into had its true effect been understood.’ Among other authorities cited in Brooks and in Perlmutter are Somerville v. Coppage, 101 Md. 519, 523-24 , 61 A. 318 ; Ginthe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 4500 Suitland Road Corp. v. Ciccarello

3. ““Its name has distracted attention, he [Professor Corbin] says, from the real issues that are involved which ‘may be any one or more of the following: (1) Have the parties made a contract? (2) Is that contract void or voidable because of illegality, fraud, mistake, or any other reason? (3) Did the parties assent to a particular writing as the complete and accurate “integration” of that contract?’ He next states (p.360): ‘In determining these issues, or any of them, there is no “parol evidence rule” to be applied. On these issues, no relevant evidence, whether parol or otherwise is excluded. No written document is sufficient, standing alone, to determine any one of them____’””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 83 Md. App. 55 - Smith v. Rosenthal Toyota, Inc.